Author Topic: Religious paradox  (Read 2875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2012, 11:31:44 AM »
You really have two choices here, which is to believe that something came from nothing, or that there has always been something (ie, an eternal first cause).  There are logical reasons for believing that this is God. There is a philosophical argument called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" which gives logical argumentation for this.  I think it is illogical to believe something came from nothing, and therefore there must be something eternal.  I believe for various reasons that this eternal something is God.

When we insert our preconceptions as answers we tend to be blinded to what facts and evidence opposed to our preconceptions suggest. In the above statement, you assume some unsubstantiated things and apparantly you did so unawares. After narrowing the chooses to the two you are most comfortable with, you then make huge and baseless assumptions for the "something" choice in that you insert what you belief your god to be as that individual something. As far as the "SOMETHING" or perhaps even "SOMETHING(s)" are concerned, the more honest approach would be to again say: "that SOMETHING(s) which is impossible (at this point) to identify, describe, or explain, acted or was acted upon (by something yet to be identified as well), causing the onset of our reality.
The SOMETHING(s) in question here cannot yet be identified. So to say it made a purposeful decision is at best wishful thinking. A better guess, but still a guess nonetheless would be to say that the SOMETHING that gave rise to our cosmos was somehow capable of causing "creation", but again we have no way of knowing whether the capable party acted purposefully or whether our cosmos arose accidentally as an effect of its actions. The speculation is infinite and the definitive answers are lacking."


I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God isn't involved.  Also, science  really doesn't have an opinion either way. ......................
What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins.  Nothing it can prove,  anyway.  Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have  a case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe.  You must  explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

The converse is even moreso true. If you want to involve your version of God in creation, then you must have logical reasons that are backed up by evidence before you do that. How does your version of a creator God explain in correct and varifiably likely means not only the creation of the universe, but also the workings of the universe. How about having Him give you some insight on how to merge relativity with quantum mechanics since you, I mean He has those answers?


I think there is evidence a reasonable person can believe.  Whether you agree or not, I don't think it is fair to say there is no evidence.  I would be more fair to say there is no evidence that you currently accept. 

I think there are many evidences for Gods existence, such as fulfilled bible prophecy.


But what about the FAILED BIBLE PROPHECY? I don't recall Jesus returning in the 1st century as he, his students, and writers like Saul/Paul continously proclaimed.
What I have learned is that the Bible speaks most loudly AGAINST the God it describes as being a reality due to its historical errors, failed prophecies, internal discrepancies, and its need to appeal to the impossible/miraculous. And being that the Bible is the primary, best, and pretty much the only source that gives a description of this God upon which faith is built, that's problematic. How can one know anything about God, (including whether or not He exists) when one sees all the folly in the holy books that supposedly speak about and for this supposed deity?

Online stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »
OOPS, DOUBLE POST
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2012, 03:17:41 PM »
Notice, it separated waters above from waters below.  There is no firmament.  There is no ocean above.

Correct, there is no ocean in the sky.  However, water doesn't only exist as a liquid.  Water vapor does exist above our earth.  And water vapor is what was lifted to create the firmament.  This is confirmed in Job.  God asked Job, where were you, ".....when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" -- Job 38:9.  According to some modern theologians as the earth cooled thick water vapor came to cover the earth and this is when "day" one of creation began.

Quote from: screwtape
Atually, I think it is completely contradictory.  Nothing about genesis resembles actual cosmology.  I would say, The Big Bang gives us no reason to believe genesis.

How does "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" conflict with the Big Bang?  Science merely teaches us that God did not create it with magic.

Quote from: stuffin
What mankind knows about the universe today versus what they wrote back then about the creation isn't even an close. You can twist and reinvent the words of the bible to try and prove  god created the universe but it still doesn't stand up to scientific scrunity.

The Bible does not teach cosmology so it should be no surprise that science has learned more than the Bible teaches.  It has very little to say on the matter but what it does say is accurate.  It says God is sitting above the "circle of the earth".  Many scholars say the word translated "circle" can mean sphere.  That is why some translations translate it as "globe".  It also says God is "hanging the earth upon nothing."  These are both accurate statements.

Quote from: stuffin
When you can prove an exact time measurement which the bible uses maybe we can take a closer look at what the bible is saying. Until that happens, christians will keep changing timelines to suit their particular point.

Again, the bible is not a science book.  It is a book about man's relationship to God.  How long the creative days were is not important.  Cosmology is not important beyond the realm of science and the Bible's goal is not to make us all scientists.  How old the earth is does not affect me in any measurable way.  Before the first day, "God created the heavens and the earth".  It gives no inkling about how long that took.  However, it does give reason to believe we are still living in the seventh day as Christians are urged to "enter into God's rest" and we all know he rested on the seventh day.

Because science understands some of the tools used to create the universe says nothing about the existance of God.  Science merely helps us define God.  Rather than being a great magician, he is evidently a great scientist.




Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2012, 05:53:49 PM »
The Bible is NOT about a relationship with man and God. It is a bunch of fairytales made to scare you into submission to authority...nothing more.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12378
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #62 on: June 29, 2012, 08:31:04 PM »
And water vapor is what was lifted to create the firmament. 

That would be an incorrect apologetic.  The firmament was solid.  Hard.  A wall.  A shell.  To which stars were pasted.  Not vapor.  Not water droplets suspended in air.  And the Hebrews believed it was an ocean up there.  Confirmed in genesis whatever: whatever, when yhwh flooded the earth in one of his several unsuccessful attempts eradicate all sin.  He "opened the windows of heaven".

This is confirmed in Job.  God asked Job, where were you, ".....when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" -- Job 38:9. 

Sorry, that is somewhere between poetic hyperbole and utterly meaningless.

According to some modern theologians as the earth cooled thick water vapor came to cover the earth and this is when "day" one of creation began.

Oh, well, if theologians say so, then by all means, we must overturn the science.  Can you tell my eyes are rolling?

How does "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" conflict with the Big Bang?  Science merely teaches us that God did not create it with magic.

Lots of ways.  For one, the "heavens" were not created, as far as we can tell.  For two, the big bang - ie, the beginning - happened about 14 billion years ago, roughly 9 billion years before anything we could call "the earth" appeared.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #63 on: June 29, 2012, 10:25:16 PM »
And water vapor is what was lifted to create the firmament. 

That would be an incorrect apologetic.  The firmament was solid.  Hard.  A wall.  A shell.  To which stars were pasted.  Not vapor.  Not water droplets suspended in air.  And the Hebrews believed it was an ocean up there.  Confirmed in genesis whatever: whatever, when yhwh flooded the earth in one of his several unsuccessful attempts eradicate all sin.  He "opened the windows of heaven".

No it is not. 

"The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6). Keil and Delitzsch offered this definition in their monumental commentary on the Pentateuch: “to stretch, to spread out, then beat or tread out...the spreading out of air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere” (1980, 1:52). In an article discussing the firmament of Genesis 1:6-8, Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” because it “not only is inaccurate but also has fostered unjust criticism that the Bible erroneously and naively pictures the sky above the earth as a solid dome” (1991, 11[4]:14). Strictly speaking, of course, “firmament” is not actually a translation of raqia at all, but rather, more accurately, a transliteration"

"The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek produced by Jewish scholars in the third centuy B.C. at the behest of the Egyptian pharaoh, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for inclusion in his world-famous library in Alexandria) translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the then-popular Egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy [they were, after all, doing their translating in Egypt for an Egyptian pharaoh] that embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault. Unfortunately, those Hebrew scholars therefore chose to render raqia via the Greek word stereoma—in order to suggest a firm, solid structure. The Greek connotation thus influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support—from which the word “firmament” is transliterated) to reflect this pagan concept (McKechinie, 1978, p. 691). In his Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Old Testament scholar W.E. Vine stressed"

"While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers [of the Old Testament—BT] were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67)."

"Raqia denotes simply an expanse, not a solid structure (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:2218). Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word. Numbers 16:38 juxtaposes raqia and pahim (plates), suggesting literally an “expanse of plates.” Here, “plates” specifies the actual material involved in the expansion. In Genesis, “heavens,” not solid matter, is given as the nature of the expanse (Genesis 1:8,14,15,17,20). The original context in which raqia is used does not imply any kind of solid dome above the Earth. The Bible equates “firmament” with the “heavens” (Psalm 19:1), even using the compound “firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14-15,17). God provided the correct definition on the second day of creation when He “called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1:8). It was described further when Isaiah said that the Lord “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22). “Heavens” always is dual in the Hebrew and, in general, refers to the “heights” above the Earth. As such, there are three particular applications of the word in Scripture. There are the atmospheric heavens (Jeremiah 4:25), the sidereal heavens (outer space) where the planetary bodies reside (Isaiah 13:10), and the heaven of God’s own dwelling place (Hebrews 9:24). As the context requires, “firmament” may be used in reference to any one of these. Birds are said to fly in “the open firmament of heaven” (the atmospheric heavens, Genesis 1:20). The Sun, Moon, and stars are set in “the firmament of heaven” (the sidereal heavens, Genesis 1:17). And the psalmist spoke of God’s “sanctuary” as being “in the firmament” (Psalm 150:1).

Quote
Sorry, that is somewhere between poetic hyperbole and utterly meaningless.

And that is somewhere between cherry picking and just trying to be disagreable.

Quote
Oh, well, if theologians say so, then by all means, we must overturn the science.  Can you tell my eyes are rolling?

Wiki confirms the idea is not so unscientific.  I hope you didn't hurt yourself rolling your eyes for no reason.

"Over time, such cosmic bombardments ceased, allowing the planet to cool and form a solid crust. Water that was brought here by comets and asteroids condensed into clouds and the oceans took shape."

Quote
Lots of ways.  For one, the "heavens" were not created, as far as we can tell.  For two, the big bang - ie, the beginning - happened about 14 billion years ago, roughly 9 billion years before anything we could call "the earth" appeared.

What we see when we look up has not always existed so the Bible is not incorrect.  Furthermore the age of the earth in relation to the big bang has nothing to do with it.  The Bible does not say how long "in the beginning" lasted.  "In the beginning" was a time before creative day one.

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12378
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2012, 12:18:28 AM »
No it is not. 

Yes, it is.  Strong's Concordance not good enough for you? 

"The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6).

Agreed.  What did yon ancients beat out?  Copper?  Bronze?  Metal sheet, p'raps?  Solid things, I presume. Certainly not...water vapor.

The rest is not cited in a way I can easily access.  No publication titles.  However am I to look them up?  I've never heard of them and their arguments appear to amount to "nuh-uh" or "because I just said so". 

Luckily for you, I found a link that appears to be the very article you pasted.  Apologetics press.  So sad.  Not scholarly.  Apologetics is inherently anti-scholarship.  You see, scholarship investigates.  Apologetics presumes and shoe-horns.  They are conflicting interests.


From a straight forward reading of genesis, it makes no sense that it implies a vapor barrier.  It separated the waters above from the waters below.  It does not say the "water vapor above".  Other parts of genesis, as I cited, portray it as solid.

Here's a couple of other experts
http://www.theopedia.com/Raqiya#ref-0

That one points out that extra biblical writing of the jews - remember them, the guys who wrote genesis? - includes speculation as to what the firmament was made of - all solid materials.  It also points out that they differentiated between the firmament and the air between it and the land. Early xian theologians also thought it was solid.

So, you're argument doesn't hold water.  Get it?  I'm keeping with a theme here.

This whole "firmament wasn't firm" malarkey is a relatively recent idea.  One that was born of xian embarrassment of the things they believe and an attempt to reconcile their iron age mythology with modern knowledge.

wiki, while not exactly authoritative, does have some good source links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

Try the catholic encyclopedia and the Vault of Heaven links.  Priceless.

Oh, and check this out - you mentioned job 38:9?  How about job 37:18:
Quote
With Him, have you spread out the skies,
Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Lookey there.  It fits with the theme of things that were beaten out.

And that is somewhere between cherry picking and just trying to be disagreable.

It was a totally random quote that meant little or nothing and certainly did nothing for your argument.

Wiki confirms the idea is not so unscientific.  I hope you didn't hurt yourself rolling your eyes for no reason.

In what way does wiki confirm that plants appearing before the sun and moon is not unscientific?


What we see when we look up has not always existed so the Bible is not incorrect.  Furthermore the age of the earth in relation to the big bang has nothing to do with it.  The Bible does not say how long "in the beginning" lasted.  "In the beginning" was a time before creative day one.

Oh, for fuck's sakes.  9 billion years is still in the beginning?  Whose frame of reference are we talking about here?  Was the bible written for the universe or for people? 


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #65 on: June 30, 2012, 03:22:21 PM »
I have very little time but I will reply about firmament.

http://bible.cc/genesis/1-6.htm

Scofield reference notes

Quote
The second day: vapor above, water below

Margin firmament

Lit. expanse (i.e. of waters beneath, of vapour above).

King James Translator's Notes

Quote
firmament: Heb. expansion

Barne's Notes on the Bible

Quote
ra?q??ya?, "expanse;" ????????? stereo?ma, ??? ra?qa?, "spread out by beating, as leaf gold." This expanse was not understood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Genesis 1:21.

Clarke's Commentary

Quote
And God said, Let there be a firmament - Our translators, by following the firmamentum of the Vulgate, which is a translation of the ???????? of the Septuagint, have deprived this passage of all sense and meaning. The Hebrew word ???? rakia, from ??? raka, to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavilion, simply signifies an expanse or space, and consequently that circumambient space or expansion separating the clouds, which are in the higher regions of it, from the seas, etc., which are below it.

Gill's Exposition

Quote
between these God ordered a "firmament to be", or an "expanse" (v); something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called; seePsa 104:2 and by it is meant the air, as it is rendered by the Targum on Psalm 19:1

Keil and Delitzsch Bible Commentary

Quote
the division of the chaotic mass of waters through the formation of the firmament, which was placed as a wall of separation (??????) in the midst of the waters, and divided them into upper and lower waters. ???? .s, from ??? to stretch, spread out, then beat or tread out, means expansum, the spreading out of the air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere. According to optical appearance, it is described as a carpet spread out above the earth (Psalm 54:2), a curtain (Isaiah 40:22), a transparent work of sapphire (Exodus 24:10), or a molten looking-glass (Job 37:18); but there is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass, a ?????????, or ???????? or ???????????, such as Greek poets describe

Wesley's Notes

Quote
The command of God; Let there be a firmament - An expansion; so the Hebrew word signifies, like a sheet spread, or a curtain drawn out. This includes all that is visible above the earth, between it and the third heavens, the air, its higher, middle, and lower region, the celestial globe, and all the orbs of light above

The design of it; to divide the waters from the waters - That is, to distinguish between the waters that are wrapt up in the clouds, and those that cover the sea; the waters in the air, and those in the earth.


Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2012, 04:46:46 PM »
God again failed .....he picked the wrong handfull of people to survive the flood with Noah......the reason to KILL all people in the world to get rid of sin FAILED again. This ommni-max diety is a total fuck-tard....the Garden,the Flood,Jesus....all failed attempts at making it right
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2012, 06:17:08 PM »

The Bible does not teach cosmology so it should be no surprise that science has learned more than the Bible teaches.  It has very little to say on the matter but what it does say is accurate.  It says God is sitting above the "circle of the earth".  Many scholars say the word translated "circle" can mean sphere.  That is why some translations translate it as "globe".  It also says God is "hanging the earth upon nothing."  These are both accurate statements.

This is what I am saying; xians twist words and meanings to suit their desires. Why can't "circle mean circle? You know, like you would draw on a piece of paper. Circle does not mean globe or sphere; you are translating it to fit into what science now knows about the physical universe. I translate circle to mean looking towards the horizon and turning 360 degrees and the horizon is your "circle of earth." They did not understand enough about the natural world and planet motion to extrapolate globe or sphere when talking about the earth as they understood it. Modern xians are re-doing the meaning trying to prove the bible has meaning. Also, they saw gravity at work everyday but could not define it, therefore the earth had to be hanging on nothing. They couldn't understand why earth didn't fall out of the sky (so using magic they made up rationals).


Again, the bible is not a science book.  It is a book about man's relationship to God.  How long the creative days were is not important.  Cosmology is not important beyond the realm of science and the Bible's goal is not to make us all scientists.  How old the earth is does not affect me in any measurable way.  Before the first day, "God created the heavens and the earth".  It gives no inkling about how long that took.  However, it does give reason to believe we are still living in the seventh day as Christians are urged to "enter into God's rest" and we all know he rested on the seventh day.

Because science understands some of the tools used to create the universe says nothing about the existance of God.  Rather than being a great magician, he is evidently a great scientist.

We are in agreement; the bible is not a science book. Let me ask then; why do you keep trying to use translations to show how the bible can match up with scientific laws?

Science does not help define god!!! A true xian might even consider that blasphemy. It is the other way around; science is proving god is a fantasy.




I also find the use of the phrase "Science merely helps us define God" offensive. Please stop belittling me and all the others who are advocates of science.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12378
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Religious paradox
« Reply #68 on: June 30, 2012, 08:32:23 PM »
I have very little time but I will reply about firmament.

"I was mistaken" or "I was mislead" does not take all that long to write.  You should have done that instead.

Your sources have already been discarded.  Plus, they say the most ridiculous things.  Take Barne, for example.  If raqyia is "spread out by beating, as a leaf of gold" how in the world is it possible for it to NOT be understood as solid?  Is gold solid?

Clarke does not take into consideration the part about it supporting the waters above.  NOr does he seem to understand that there is no region between the liquid masses of water on the earth and the vaporous masses of water in the atmosphere.  They touch. They are not separated.

And all of them are ipse dixit. 

You, my friend, have ignored the parts of the bible that support my argument as well.  Cherry picking.  SPAG at its finest.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.